This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Papa bull

You don't really understand the gay population if you think many of them actually want to get married. This isn't a big issue for them because so many of them want to get married. It's a big issue because it would establish that homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality, at least per their argument. But then again, that's the male homosexual population. I think the female homosexual population might be more inclined to commit to monogamy. Men simply aren't inclined to monogamy and the chance of a homosexual relationship remaining monogamous for long is very, very slim.

How long have you been gay?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Nonsense. By and large, there s no real appeal to welfare. Sure, you can find a small percentage of almost anything, but the overwhelming majority doesn't want to be in welfare.

Welfare pays more than an $8/hour job in 40 states, more than a $12/hour job in 7 states and more than the salary of a teacher in 9 states. That should give you some indication of the generousity of that welfare "lifestyle".

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

As long as you've been wise. Since you think you must be something to understand something, your wisdom and my gayness are exactly the same. Non-existent.

But it's always a good question. Like you, apparently, I don't think anyone is actually born gay, either, so "how long" is always pertinent when it comes to someone's history of homosexual behavior.

Well, if you reading the literature, and not an insider, you're reading it wrong. They are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but only lack the same encouragement. But homosexuals are fighting for marriage, heterosexuals are either avoiding marriage or divorcing in large numbers.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

Welfare pays more than an $8/hour job in 40 states, more than a $12/hour job in 7 states and more than the salary of a teacher in 9 states. That should give you some indication of the generousity of that welfare "lifestyle".

Which means little to what I said. Though it does suggest underpaid teachers.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Papa bull

Stability I agree with, although "stability" in and of itself doesn't explain the value. Stability of what? And why is that stability a value for the state?

Conflicts over pairings and monogamy? I think it would be hard to make an argument that the state is affected by these things one way or another and it would be even harder to argue that marriage reduces conflicts over "pairings". If anything, marriage increases conflict. Nothing uglier than divorce court. Although I can see some special appeal in the antics that would be highlighted in a new TV series called "Gay Divorce Court".

Stable family units commit less crimes, are more self-sufficient, and pay more taxes. This is a state interest. Same-sex marriage promotes this stability.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Papa bull

You don't really understand the gay population if you think many of them actually want to get married. This isn't a big issue for them because so many of them want to get married. It's a big issue because it would establish that homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality, at least per their argument. But then again, that's the male homosexual population. I think the female homosexual population might be more inclined to commit to monogamy. Men simply aren't inclined to monogamy and the chance of a homosexual relationship remaining monogamous for long is very, very slim.

Since when is this a criteria for deciding personal rights?

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Since when is this a criteria for deciding personal rights?

It's not. You, apparently, weren't taking it in the context of the discussion because it was in reference to the notion that the "gay population" actually wants to get married (more than the heterosexual population). They don't.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

With a marriage license, the government does not regulate relationships. The government regulates taxes, inheritance rights, medical proxi, child custody, and other legal matters.

The relationship is up to you. The government does not stop any consenting adult from having whatever kind of personal relationship they desire with another consenting adult.

re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

With a marriage license, the government does not regulate relationships. The government regulates taxes, inheritance rights, medical proxi, child custody, and other legal matters.

The relationship is up to you. The government does not stop any consenting adult from having whatever kind of personal relationship they desire with another consenting adult.

They've definitely gotten a lot better, but it still does decide to equip certain citizens with special privileges, while denying the same privileges to others. I happen to believe that the law should be applied evenly and fairly.

There's no rational reason to oppose SSM. Nothing they do "demeans" your straight marriage. Those that oppose it only tend to do it because they think jesus wants them to.

Originally Posted by LowDown

I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.